IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
What was the Tory share pre and post the Falklands war in spring 1982. I expect that average is misleading.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
How can his party be described as "far right" when it has no other policies except Brexit?
It advocates no deal Brexit. Within the conventional right-left spectrum (noting its strain under the current reshaping of politics) almost all such people are on the rightward end of the Tory Party, or beyond.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannan is about the only one with a chance of being elected who backs leave. Many of the existing Tory MEPs went native years ago.
Syed Kamall, Amjad Bashir, and John Flack are Leave supporters, who should get in.
I would guess that for the Conservatives, the top candidates in the North West, Yorkshire & Humberside, South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern Region, South East, and London are all safe, along with the second candidates in the North West, Eastern Region, and South East.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
Believe it or not there was a hospital in Ancient Greece used to do that as well. It was their proud boast that nobody ever died within the temple...
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannan is about the only one with a chance of being elected who backs leave. Many of the existing Tory MEPs went native years ago.
Syed Kamall, Amjad Bashir, and John Flack are Leave supporters, who should get in.
I would guess that for the Conservatives, the top candidates in the North West, Yorkshire & Humberside, South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern Region, South East, and London are all safe, along with the second candidates in the North West, Eastern Region, and South East.
As an aside, the Conservative lists are dominated by people I've never heard of. I have no clue what they think about Brexit.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
So how do we measure the performance of the public sector if we do not set targets because they may create unintended consequences? We cannot simply throw money at them without having any idea of what that money is supposed to be buying.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannan is about the only one with a chance of being elected who backs leave. Many of the existing Tory MEPs went native years ago.
Closed party lists are a really bad idea.
As I understand it the Tories offered all the current MEPs the opportunity to re-stand in their existing list positions (as they’re hoping to either not have the election at all, or the MEPs all to be redundant in a few months’ time).
As you say, the problem now is that, in avoiding a selection row with the candidates, they’ve left ‘EU natives’ at the top of a few lists - which is going to embolden anyone pro-Brexit in those areas to vote for Farage instead.
I seriously think we could be down to less than a handful of re-elections; no-one except Hannan, top of a list of 10, is safe.
I agree that open lists are better - but it puzzles me how supporters of our current flawed system get so worked up about the evils of party lists, when FPTnP is effectively a party list of one for each party in your constituency, chosen by the party hierarchy in exactly the same way as a list system.
In most reasonably predictable list elections (less so this time, perhaps), a closed list election isn't so far from FPTnP as far as the voter is concerned. In most regions, for all of the smaller parties your candidate is effectively the person at the top of that party's list. For a larger party assured of getting its top or top two people elected come what may, your candidate is essentially the second or third person on the list. Once you work out who the marginal candidate is for each party, you can treat it as a standard single candidate per party election (and choose the best person or the best party as you determine), with the crucial difference that your vote is far less likely to be wasted.
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
Believe it or not there was a hospital in Ancient Greece used to do that as well. It was their proud boast that nobody ever died within the temple...
The problem is when the targets become seen as scripture, and the bigger picture is lost. Happens in large companies as well as the public sector, as the senior executives live by the targets and that attitude filters down the organisation to more junior managers - usually to the exasperation of those actually doing the work on the ground.
See four-hour A&E waiting times, and 18-week cancer appointments for recent examples, where meeting some arbitrary target appeared to be more important than making sure people lived rather than died. Also school league tables, leading to a disproportionate amount of time being spent on getting D students C grades, rather than helping all students get their best results.
It seems the definition of 'affordable housing' is:
' The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels. '
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
Yes, I was just about to +1 your post!
But again that's a policy thing - NP can promise "no commuted housing payments will be accepted" as part of his programme if he wants. Might not be the snappiest slogan.
But I think in fact you are both slightly missing the point. The point here being that the claim is to build affordable houses it would be necessary to build three times as many high end houses. Which as you have pointed out, isn't the case because the target is a minimum not a law of physics.
So again I say it strikes me as pretty fair bollocks.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
So how do we measure the performance of the public sector if we do not set targets because they may create unintended consequences? We cannot simply throw money at them without having any idea of what that money is supposed to be buying.
How about, we try to measure it by considering whether they're doing a good enough job to win re-election? And if not, we can vote for someone who will change it?
Admittedly, that then links to earlier posts about electoral reform in local government (also sorely needed).
"Labour will never defeat Nigel Farage if it continues to “sit on the fence” over Brexit and offers only “mealy-mouthed” support for a second referendum, the party’s deputy leader says today.
In an extraordinary intervention that exposes the tensions at the top of the party over Brexit strategy, Tom Watson warns that Labour will lose to Farage’s new “far right” Brexit party in May’s European elections if it continues to give the impression that “we half agree with him”.
How can his party be described as "far right" when it has no other policies except Brexit?
'On 12 April 2019, Farage said that there was "no difference between the Brexit party and Ukip in terms of policy, [but] in terms of personnel, there's a vast difference"'
Officers tend to like higher targets not because it delivers more affordable housing but because it makes it easier to drag in lots of commuted housing payments, as per my post below.
.
No, in fact I was taking that point as relatively straightforward (since the policy will surely define the target as a minimum, as has already been said) and trying to develop the discussion further.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
Believe it or not there was a hospital in Ancient Greece used to do that as well. It was their proud boast that nobody ever died within the temple...
The problem is when the targets become seen as scripture, and the bigger picture is lost. Happens in large companies as well as the public sector, as the senior executives live by the targets and that attitude filters down the organisation to more junior managers - usually to the exasperation of those actually doing the work on the ground.
See four-hour A&E waiting times, and 18-week cancer appointments for recent examples, where meeting some arbitrary target appeared to be more important than making sure people lived rather than died. Also school league tables, leading to a disproportionate amount of time being spent on getting D students C grades, rather than helping all students get their best results.
The trouble is that there is almost always another (usually easier) way to meet the target by doing something unintended. For example school exam pass rates are supposed to encourage schools to get more pupils to pass, but they can alternatively get better percentage pass rates by discouraging marginal pupils from sitting the exams in the first place. And by seeking to exclude their worst pupils, etc.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
What was the Tory share pre and post the Falklands war in spring 1982. I expect that average is misleading.
There weren't any Westminster elections in Mitcham & Morden in 1980 or 1981...
It seems the definition of 'affordable housing' is:
' The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels. '
Which might mean 'affordable housing' isn't affordable in areas of high property prices.
And certainly not ‘affordable’ when interest rates are pretty much zero for a decade.
In London, ‘affordable’ still requires the best part of a year’s salary as a deposit for a mortgage, although I believe (possibly out of date) there are schemes that can mitigate this run by some authorities such as lease agreements and shared ownership.
The LDS will probably do very well in Remain areas. The interesting thing will be whether they also do well in the Leave areas where they're traditionally strong.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
Her deal isn't leaving
So no need to be mad we havent left. Besides, her deal is too much leaving for most of parliament. Boris and co getting erections over Churchill speeches doesnt change that.
Indeed, the whole 'her deal isn't leaving' argument has taken a fatal blow as even most who think it terrible like Boris and JRM accepted in the end that as bad as it was it was still leaving and better than nothing.
The new Tory candidates where the sitting MEP is retiring or defected
East second third slot (Campbell Bannerman retiring): Joe Rich (stood in Stoke South in 2015)
North West second slot (Foster retiring): Kevin Beaty (Eden council leader)
SE third slot (Ashworth to ChUK): Richard Robinson (Euro candidate in 2004, 2009 and 2014, used to be president of Surrey Heath Conservatives Association)
SW second slot (Girling to ChUK): James Must (St Austell Cllr)
Wales top slot ( Swinburne retiring): Dan Boucher (stood in Swansea East in 2017 and South Wales West region in 2016)
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
How about, we try to measure it by considering whether they're doing a good enough job to win re-election? And if not, we can vote for someone who will change it?
Admittedly, that then links to earlier posts about electoral reform in local government (also sorely needed).
Well yes, it would be nice if this kind of thing could be judged through the ballot box, but the evidence is that people are not sufficiently motivated to get involved at that level (how many people bother to become members of their local NHS hospital trust? A very very small proportion of the electorate). Most people just want the government to ensure that services are well run and since public services cannot generally be judged in terms of profit and loss we have to use some other form of performance target. Which carries the risk of unintended consequences.
Yesterday's somewhat downbeat anecdata quoted by Mike wasn't mirrored today, incidentally - rather positive Labour canvassing. I think the reason for the difference is that socioeconomic group does still make a difference down here in a way that it barely does in my former patch. I was canvassing a long road yesterday which allegedly has one of the highest proportions of £1M+houses in Britain (I doubt it, but it's certainly posh), and the Labour vote there is only 10%. In Broxtowe there are similarly luxurious streets where Labour is above 30% - lots of academics brandishing the Guardian and even the occasional Morning Star. Conversely, ex-council estates in Broxtowe are now hard work for Labour, with lots of Kippers, Tories and abstainers, whereas down here they're still predominantly Labour.
I have a theory that housing affordability is a key factor.
In Surrey house prices must lead to high inequality, lower social mobility and lower immigration thus keeping a solid Labour council estate vote.
Whereas the cheap housing of much of Eastern England spreads home ownership further down the socioeconomic ladder and also encourages immigration thus creating a more right-wing working class vote.
The source of the wealth for the posh houses must be different between Surrey and Broxtowe with the former being predominantly City based but a much more public sector element in Broxtowe.
I like your theory, but you did lose me at "cheap housing of much of Eastern England" . Perhaps "far less expensive than London but still way, way more than County Durham" would be closer to the truth.
Where is the cheapest housing in England? If I had to make a wild guess I would point to somewhere like Maryport, but I can imagine it might be say, Bury or Bradford or Stoke.
Thanks, but again that's affordability rather than cheapness. There might be places where houses are cheaper in raw numbers but incomes are lower. That's why I guessed at Maryport where there isn't much local employment.
Of course, it may be that affordability is a more sensible measure than cash price.
Blaenau Ffestiniog is very affordable.
Gone a lot dearer lately. Lots of incomers from England.
OK, fair point. Because I don't have your expert knowledge, I was just considering the basic question of whether the council were telling porkies. I certainly agree that what you did add was valuable, and highly disturbing.
Disturbing in that any target set for the public sector tends to have unintended consequences. It was the biggest failing of the New Labour control freakery era. Measuring anything using a simplistic target is fraught with danger.
The best example comes from Soviet Russia - concerned at the levels of deaths in hospitals, the USSR required all hospitals to report their levels of inpatient mortality, with the usual severe consequences for the worst offenders. The upshot was that it became common for patients thought to be nearing their end to be wheeled out onto the street so that they could die off hospital premises.
Believe it or not there was a hospital in Ancient Greece used to do that as well. It was their proud boast that nobody ever died within the temple...
The problem is when the targets become seen as scripture, and the bigger picture is lost. Happens in large companies as well as the public sector, as the senior executives live by the targets and that attitude filters down the organisation to more junior managers - usually to the exasperation of those actually doing the work on the ground.
See four-hour A&E waiting times, and 18-week cancer appointments for recent examples, where meeting some arbitrary target appeared to be more important than making sure people lived rather than died. Also school league tables, leading to a disproportionate amount of time being spent on getting D students C grades, rather than helping all students get their best results.
The trouble is that there is almost always another (usually easier) way to meet the target by doing something unintended. For example school exam pass rates are supposed to encourage schools to get more pupils to pass, but they can alternatively get better percentage pass rates by discouraging marginal pupils from sitting the exams in the first place. And by seeking to exclude their worst pupils, etc.
Indeed so. Identifying problems is always much easier than identifying solutions
And on that note, good night all, may those PBers of all religions and none have a joyous Easter.
It seems the definition of 'affordable housing' is:
' The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels. '
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
Probably? Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
Apart from anything else, the vast majority of areas were in the 60/40 or even 55/45 ranges, with even extreme areas for either side having a third going against the majority, whether Leave or Remain. The maps can be quite misleading at a macro scale.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
It's wealthier but it may have slightly fewer people with higher educational qualifications.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
Brokenwheel can exclude Sevenoaks though because it doesn't fit with his analysis.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
It's wealthier but it may have slightly fewer people with higher educational qualifications.
Maybe but it is still wealthier, I do agree though that the percentage of graduates in am area is a better guide to whether it voted Remain or Leave than average wealth, the same was true in the US in determining whether a state was likely to have voted for Hillary or Trump
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
Tunbridge Wells voted Remain, Crawley voted Leave
Quite.
As for Liverpool, it’s an exception that proves the rule. Why did no areas outside Merseyside with similar demographics vote Remain?
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
In 1975 43.6% of the electorate voted in favour of joining the EEC.
May has been an unmitigated disaster for the Tories. The parliamentary party simply have to do whatever it takes to get rid of her. She has no policies except Brexit which is a sell out. What on earth were those MPs who voted that they had confidence in her leadership at the beginning of the year thinking when they cast their votes. Small wonder the party faces electoral oblivion if she stays.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
Tunbridge Wells voted Remain, Crawley voted Leave
Quite.
As for Liverpool, it’s an exception that proves the rule. Why did no areas outside Merseyside with similar demographics vote Remain?
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
A small fracture. At best. The Tories are unable to achieve Brexit and that will ruin them for some time.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
No, what i said was "major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results". How is this in dispute? Or are you arguing that the constitution hasn't changed since the advent of democracy?
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Well there is also the fact that Liverpool voted remain while Chichester voted leave. And nobody who knows the local area would suggest that remain voting Brighton was wealthier than leave voting Tunbridge Wells. Or that remain voting Crawley is richer than the leave voting surroundings.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
Tunbridge Wells voted Remain, Crawley voted Leave
Quite.
As for Liverpool, it’s an exception that proves the rule. Why did no areas outside Merseyside with similar demographics vote Remain?
Leicester voted Remain.
I'm not sure Leicester's demographics are all that similar to those of Liverpool.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
A splinter in Labour - there's a dirty great tectonic rift in the Tories.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
A small fracture. At best. The Tories are unable to achieve Brexit and that will ruin them for some time.
I think you are underestimating the problems for labour but TM days look very numbered
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
Why does all the time mean in recent years to you? Can someone not take a broader historical view? 10 changes in 100 years would be all the time for such purposes. And what level of constitutional change qualifies?
I think you are unconvincingly splitting hairs. I know what that looks like from my mirror.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
A splinter in Labour - there's a dirty great tectonic rift in the Tories.
I agree on that Ben but no one will escape damage in this
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
In 1975 43.6% of the electorate voted in favour of joining the EEC.
That's incorrect. The UK joined the EEC in 1973 without a referendum. The 1975 vote took place as part of a wheeze by Harold Wilson to deal with his split parliamentary party.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
Why does all the time mean in recent years to you? Can someone not take a broader historical view? 10 changes in 100 years would be all the time for such purposes. And what level of constitutional change qualifies?
I think you are unconvincingly splitting hairs. I know what that looks like from my mirror.
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
No, what i said was "major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results". How is this in dispute? Or are you arguing that the constitution hasn't changed since the advent of democracy?
It's "all the time" I am struggling with.
Sure, I can think of examples from 100 years ago but parliament is not making constitutional change all the time.
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
It's wealthier but it may have slightly fewer people with higher educational qualifications.
Maybe but it is still wealthier, I do agree though that the percentage of graduates in am area is a better guide to whether it voted Remain or Leave than average wealth, the same was true in the US in determining whether a state was likely to have voted for Hillary or Trump
Yes I think the best indicators at the EU referendum were qualifications, age and ethnicity. Wealth was not as important as those three. Epping Forest for instance is pretty wealthy but voted Leave by a convincing margin. There was also a Merseyside effect where Liverpool and the surrounding areas were more Remain than you'd expect from demographics.
And no one is coming to help. Not even promising to implement a labour Brexit would do it since they want a referendum. I dont see how the Tories recover in the medium term.
Labour MPs from Leave seats like Flint and Snell certainly do not want another referendum
Theres not enough of them to matter. Are there enough labour votes to see a Brexit achieved? Plainly, the answer is no or wed not have delayed.
There are enough of them to see a fracture in labour
A small fracture. At best. The Tories are unable to achieve Brexit and that will ruin them for some time.
I think you are underestimating the problems for labour but TM days look very numbered
I think labour have problems, but they can be managed to some extent and politics is an adversarial game, they can get by if the Tories do worse. The problems for the Tories are unresolvable. Even trying a new leader and 180 in policy just opens up different faultlines
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
No, what i said was "major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results". How is this in dispute? Or are you arguing that the constitution hasn't changed since the advent of democracy?
It's "all the time" I am struggling with. Sure, I can think of examples from 100 years ago but parlaiment is not making constitutional change all the time.
All occurrences of the constitution being changed were made based on general election results that didn't require an absolute majority of electors. Not sure how else to express this concept.
As is the country as if we never leave the EU the prospect of Farage becoming PM cannot be dismissed
Oh yes it can. He cannot get elected by FPTP in seven goes, and his gimps are even less succesful.
Leading the Euro polls at 27% does not translate to PM.
Electoral Calculus gives UKIP (or the Brexit Party in this case) 290 seats if Farage repeats his Yougov European elections polling at a general election and Labour gets 22% and the Tories 15%. Add in the 10 for the DUP and that produces 300 seats, just needs 10 or 20 more and Farage certainly would be PM
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
Probably? Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
Really? The actual result of the by election was:
Rumbold -Con - 13,306 (43.4%) Mann - SDP - 9,032 (29..4%) Nicholas -Lab - 7,475 (24.4%)
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
No, what i said was "major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results". How is this in dispute? Or are you arguing that the constitution hasn't changed since the advent of democracy?
Dont tell that to the changes to the house of lords or judicial functions of the house of lords.
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
Probably? Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
Really? The actual result of the by election was:
Rumbold -Con - 13,306 (43.4%) Mann - SDP - 9,032 (29..4%) Nicholas -Lab - 7,475 (24.4%)
As is the country as if we never leave the EU the prospect of Farage becoming PM cannot be dismissed
Oh yes it can. He cannot get elected by FPTP in seven goes, and his gimps are even less succesful.
Leading the Euro polls at 27% does not translate to PM.
Electoral Calculus gives UKIP (or the Brexit Party in this case) 290 seats if Farage repeats his Yougov European elections polling at a general election and Labour gets 22% and the Tories 15%. Add in the 10 for the DUP and that produces 300 seats, just needs 10 or 20 more and Farage certainly would be PM
I'm so hacked off with May screwing Brexit, I wrote to our local Tory candidates saying I would never vote Tory with May as their leader.
One of them wrote back saying they completely understood and they agreed with my views on May.
I suspect they all know due to May refusing to resign, they are going to get a pumelling in the locals and a near extinction event in the Euro one
So what should the next Conservative leader actually do ?
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
It was 52% of the British people who voted.
37% actually
Only 35% voted to Remain
That's true, but to avoid this sort of mess in the future we should have a firm rule that says if people want a major constitutional change they have to get out and vote for it; the change should only be carried if an absolute majority of registered voters vote for it.
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Given that major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results I don's see the issue with a simple majority. The opinion of those too lazy to vote matters naught.
Example?
Every constitutional change before this one?
You said that "that major constitutional changes are made all the time". Which ones did parliament make last year? Or the year before?
No, what i said was "major constitutional changes are made all the time based on general election results". How is this in dispute? Or are you arguing that the constitution hasn't changed since the advent of democracy?
It's "all the time" I am struggling with.
Sure, I can think of examples from 100 years ago but parliament is not making constitutional change all the time.
Sure it is. Every government makes new law and plenty of that will have constitutional significance.
As is the country as if we never leave the EU the prospect of Farage becoming PM cannot be dismissed
Oh yes it can. He cannot get elected by FPTP in seven goes, and his gimps are even less succesful.
Leading the Euro polls at 27% does not translate to PM.
Electoral Calculus gives UKIP (or the Brexit Party in this case) 290 seats if Farage repeats his Yougov European elections polling at a general election and Labour gets 22% and the Tories 15%. Add in the 10 for the DUP and that produces 300 seats, just needs 10 or 20 more and Farage certainly would be PM
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
Probably? Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
Really? The actual result of the by election was:
Rumbold -Con - 13,306 (43.4%) Mann - SDP - 9,032 (29..4%) Nicholas -Lab - 7,475 (24.4%)
IanB2: deciding not to fight elections immediately was one of TIGs worst decisions. When the SDP was formed in 1981, they couldn't wait to get an opportunity to contest elections from what I've read. Being a political party that doesn't want to fight elections is a contradiction in terms.
The SDP actually made the same error back in 1981 by faling to resign their seats to force by elections. Had they done so, virtually all were likely to have been re-elected and better placed to fight the 1983 election. A single late defector - Bruce Douglas -Mann - insisted on a by election at Mitcham & Morden in Spring 1982, but he fell victim to the surge of patriotism which boosted the Tory vote at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Nah, it was a split Left-wing vote. Angela Rumbold lost a bit of vote-share for the Tories.
Had the by election been held a few months earlier, Douglas-Mann would have won comfortably on the back of a much lower Tory vote. Just look at what had happened at the Hillhead by election at the end of March 1982 and at Crosby in late November 1981. Tory support shot up dramatically in the May/June 1982 period.
Search your feelings, Justin. You will know it to be true!
Tory vote-share in 1979 = 43.9% Tory vote-share in 1982 = 43.4%
That really misses the point! Had the by election been a few months earlier , the Tories would probably fallen below 25% there - greatly to the benefit of the SDP.
Probably? Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
Really? The actual result of the by election was:
Rumbold -Con - 13,306 (43.4%) Mann - SDP - 9,032 (29..4%) Nicholas -Lab - 7,475 (24.4%)
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
It's wealthier but it may have slightly fewer people with higher educational qualifications.
Maybe but it is still wealthier, I do agree though that the percentage of graduates in am area is a better guide to whether it voted Remain or Leave than average wealth, the same was true in the US in determining whether a state was likely to have voted for Hillary or Trump
Yes I think the best indicators at the EU referendum were qualifications, age and ethnicity. Wealth was not as important as those three. Epping Forest for instance is pretty wealthy but voted Leave by a convincing margin. There was also a Merseyside effect where Liverpool and the surrounding areas were more Remain than you'd expect from demographics.
As a resident of Epping Forest agreed (though Epping voted Leave by a smaller margin than poorer parts of Essex like Harlow, Clacton and Basildon)
A cry for help from left behind Communities , really if that was the case I’d have been a lot more accepting of the result .
Even though they chose to take their anger out on the wrong thing . The government really should have been the cause of their anger .
A big part of the Leave vote was due to well off Tories in the Shires , the same group who want a no deal and really have little to lose whilst fxcking everyone else .
Can you explain then why the wealthiest Tory shires of the M4 and M3 corridors voted Remain?
After all Cameron, Osborne etc are entirely representative of the wealthy Tory patrician class, and they are liberal remainers.
Or how if the Leave vote was mostly wealthy Tories, why so few went to university?
Maybe you are talking bollocks.
Fair point, but the explanation is that *fewer than expected* posh people voted remain, not *None*
No, that’s not the assertion. This false narrative has been seeping in from the Remain camp that actually Leave is some Machiavellian scheme of the most well-off to screw over the poor.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The places with the greatest concentrations of wealth voted Remain.
It’s blatant. Take a look at Kent, a very leavey place. The wealthiest part is Tunbridge Wells, it’s the destination of choice for City workers for example. Just as true-blue Tory as elsewhere, yet it’s the only part of the county to vote Remain.
Sevenoaks is also in Kent and is actually slightly wealthier than Tunbridge Wells and narrowly voted Leave
Are you talking about the whole borough though? I would be really surprised if that’s true any more.
And in other news France and Macron look in serious trouble
Slightly hyperbolic in all honesty. They've arrested 100 in Paris - we've arrested 800 in the Extinction Rebellion protests. Yes, it's all very dramatic but they don't know the 99% of Paris which had a normal Saturday.
I'm not sure claiming France is "in serious trouble" after a round of the usual French public disorder is correct - it's France, it's how it works there.
Comments
@EuropeElects
8h8 hours ago
Italy (European Election), Ipsos Poll:
LEGA-ENF: 36.9% (+1.2)
M5S-EFDD: 22.3% (-1)
PD-S&D: 18.7% (-0.3)
FI-EPP: 8.7% (-1.2)
FdI-ECR: 4.6% (+0.6)
+E/IC-ALDE: 3% (-0.1)
...
+/- vs. 2-4 Apr. '19
Field work: not revealed yet
Sample size: 1,000
➤ http://europeelects.eu/italy"
I would guess that for the Conservatives, the top candidates in the North West, Yorkshire & Humberside, South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern Region, South East, and London are all safe, along with the second candidates in the North West, Eastern Region, and South East.
It wasn't May who voted against leaving the EU - it was the ERG.
Who remembers the Easter Saturday 2009 evening when the McBride story broke?
In most reasonably predictable list elections (less so this time, perhaps), a closed list election isn't so far from FPTnP as far as the voter is concerned. In most regions, for all of the smaller parties your candidate is effectively the person at the top of that party's list. For a larger party assured of getting its top or top two people elected come what may, your candidate is essentially the second or third person on the list. Once you work out who the marginal candidate is for each party, you can treat it as a standard single candidate per party election (and choose the best person or the best party as you determine), with the crucial difference that your vote is far less likely to be wasted.
See four-hour A&E waiting times, and 18-week cancer appointments for recent examples, where meeting some arbitrary target appeared to be more important than making sure people lived rather than died. Also school league tables, leading to a disproportionate amount of time being spent on getting D students C grades, rather than helping all students get their best results.
It seems the definition of 'affordable housing' is:
' The government's definition when it comes to renting is that affordable homes should cost no more than 80% of the average local market rent.
When it comes to home ownership, it is a little less clear-cut.
The government definition of affordable housing states it must be provided at a level at which the mortgage payments on the property should be more than would be paid in rent on council housing, but below market levels. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38067626
Which might mean 'affordable housing' isn't affordable in areas of high property prices.
Admittedly, that then links to earlier posts about electoral reform in local government (also sorely needed).
https://tinyurl.com/yxun6ylw
'UKIP
Moving to the far-right: 2018–present'
https://tinyurl.com/y2f5woy2
In London, ‘affordable’ still requires the best part of a year’s salary as a deposit for a mortgage, although I believe (possibly out of date) there are schemes that can mitigate this run by some authorities such as lease agreements and shared ownership.
This idea that the working class is behind leave is a complete crock. It's just an age thing. Sure a lot of working class people support leave - just not the ones who are still actually doing any work.
Indeed, the whole 'her deal isn't leaving' argument has taken a fatal blow as even most who think it terrible like Boris and JRM accepted in the end that as bad as it was it was still leaving and better than nothing.
East second third slot (Campbell Bannerman retiring): Joe Rich (stood in Stoke South in 2015)
North West second slot (Foster retiring): Kevin Beaty (Eden council leader)
SE third slot (Ashworth to ChUK): Richard Robinson (Euro candidate in 2004, 2009 and 2014, used to be president of Surrey Heath Conservatives Association)
SW second slot (Girling to ChUK): James Must (St Austell Cllr)
Wales top slot ( Swinburne retiring): Dan Boucher (stood in Swansea East in 2017 and South Wales West region in 2016)
And on that note, good night all, may those PBers of all religions and none have a joyous Easter.
Had everyone wot voted Labour instead backed Douglas Mann, he would have beaten Rumbold by 0.4%!
(Tbf, I think I misread BJO's post anyway!)
Leading the Euro polls at 27% does not translate to PM.
Quite.
As for Liverpool, it’s an exception that proves the rule. Why did no areas outside Merseyside with similar demographics vote Remain?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum
I think you are unconvincingly splitting hairs. I know what that looks like from my mirror.
Sure, I can think of examples from 100 years ago but parliament is not making constitutional change all the time.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=15&LAB=22&LIB=9&UKIP=27&Green=7&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
Rumbold -Con - 13,306 (43.4%)
Mann - SDP - 9,032 (29..4%)
Nicholas -Lab - 7,475 (24.4%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
I'm not sure claiming France is "in serious trouble" after a round of the usual French public disorder is correct - it's France, it's how it works there.